User:AYArktos~enwiki/sandbox/Anon from Gundagai

Use templates: / and

IPs
/ /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /

Involved parties
Anon user editing from the following IPs (and more): /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /   / /  /   /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /

I have notified at Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales and Talk:Murrumbidgee River. These talk pages are the most often frequented and are at the core of the request for arbitration.--A Y Arktos\talk 08:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Editor notified on talk page  --A Y Arktos\talk 09:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC) (If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)
 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
 * In addition to article talk page discussions responding to and addressing issues raised by user and by user's behaviour:


 * Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 21
 * User talk:Longhair
 * User talk:Longhair/Archive9
 * User talk:Longhair
 * User talk:Longhair 13 July comments by Petaholmes


 * User talk:Petaholmes
 * User talk:Petaholmes 13 July


 * User talk:AYArktos (now archived)
 * User talk:AYArktos/Archive05 - comments by User:Roisterer
 * User talk:AYArktos/Archive05 - comments by Longhair 9 July and Robertmyers 12 July
 * User talk:AYArktos/Archive05 - response by Petaholes and Longhair 13 July


 * WP:AN/I
 * Initial Posting from Robertmyers 13 July Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive120
 * My request Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive120 13 July

I feel mediation or other resolution mechanisms will not be appropriate for this dispute as this user ignored requests in the past when asked to modify behaviour.

Statement by A Y Arktos
An editor using a range of Telstra Internet Addresses has been editing for over a month on articles related to. In June, this editor included into the Gundagai article, some information about the to the effect that the statue of a dog commemorated a massacre. After attempting to seek clarification and requesting citations, the material was moved to the talk page pending supply of citations from reliable sources.

The editor had also introduced the same material into the article about the in May.  The issue was raised at the Australian Wikipedians' Noticeboard, where it was agreed that standing on cite sources was reasonable, and other editors could also not find anything to support the assertions.

The editor has made a number of assertions, mainly on the talk page of Gundagai, including attacking a number of editors for holding views that differ to his own. These include attacks on ,  and on myself , including accusations of stalking. 

The editor has been extremely argumentative when requested to cite sources and in accepting that textual analysis to reference a massacre (with no reliable sources supporting this analysis or the massacre) is unacceptable.  

While some contributions may be useful, others are plain nonsense and also inappropriate 1st person comments, well after the editor has been asked not to include 1st person comments in articles.

The editor steadfastly refuses to follow any talk page etiquette: will not sign or format entries and makes confusing insertions into the midst of comments by others. It is very hard to follow. I have given up reformatting and adding unsigned tags. However, an example of what can happen is the addition of a comment by (with signature of) User:Adam Carr which was inserted into a talk page discussion on a page to which Adam Carr had never contributed - but it was not at all clear from the formatting. (I have no reason to believe the editor is Adam Carr editing without being signed in!)  The contribution of that particular edit to the discussion about the article was also not clear.

I would like the Arbcom to consider whether semi-protection from time to time is an option for pages, such as Gundagai, Murrumbidgee River, and Hume Highway (including their talk pages), to prevent personal attacks and inappropriate edits? Similarly, as the editor evades blocks by relogging in, are range blocks appropriate? For examples of avoiding blocks see:


 * 1) resumed activity within 40 minutes as
 * 2) resumed activity in less than 1 hour as
 * 3) resumed activity as  within 2 1/2 hours despite 48 hour block
 * 4) (resumed after block expired)

I am also seeking a ruling that disruptive edits and edits adding information unsupported by reliable sources from the IP ranges can be reverted without further discussion. Relevant IP ranges are:
 * 1) 203.54.9.0/24 - 256 addresses ranging from 203.54.9.0 thru 203.54.9.255
 * 2) 203.54.186.0/24 - 256 addresses ranging from 203.54.186.0 thru 203.54.186.255
 * 3) 203.54.174.0/24 - 256 addresses ranging from 203.54.174.0 thru 203.54.174.255

The ruling would preferably make provision for any other IPs made from apparently the same editor, for example if he changes Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

Thank you for your consideration --A Y Arktos\talk 23:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

(PS for ease in use of pronouns, I am female.)

Statement by party 2

 * (Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Not sure if these edits count as a response. The editor does not sign and may not chose to post here but has referenced this request. --A Y Arktos\talk 02:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment regarding IP range
According to Whois, the entire 203.54.0.0/16 is operated by the same ISP - Telstra Internet of Southeastern Australia. As a result, it is entirely possible for the anon to edit under an IP with the third number being something other than 9, 174, or 186. 04:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)

 * Reject, this looks like it is more suitable for mediation at this point. Dmcdevit·t 01:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reject in favour of mediation. James F. (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reject. - SimonP 14:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Draft RfC
In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~ ), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

Anon user editing from the following IPs (and more) all from the same the same ISP - Telstra Internet of Southeastern Australia: /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /   / /  /   /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

The anon has edited a number of articles, particularly relating to, a small town in south-eastern Australia. He asserts various facts but usually fails to back them up with sources, although sometimes sources have been provided later in the discussion. He has then attacked editors who disagree with him.

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

In the course of editing, the anon editor has added unsourced and unverified information. He has also abused editors who have questioned the sources or who have worked on the articles in the normal course of editing. The anon editor has engaged in extensive discourse on talk pages of articles but refuses to sign his comments and intersperses comments among edits made by others, making the dialogue all but impossible to follow. He has also included comments and first person ramblings into articles.

The major area of contention began with the assertion concerning an alleged massacre of indigenous Australians in 1838 near Gundagai, New South Wales and symbolism of the massacre by the statue of the Dog on the Tuckerbox. The information was also added to the article on the Hume Highway. Various editors researched the assertion and none could find any source to substantiate it. For their pains they have been abused.

Note there are a very great many diffs involved and have not all been included; they are of course visible in the histories of the articles and and in the contributions of the IPs.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * Gundagai: Initial edits asserting massacre - ; Refusal to cite sources, for example
 * Murrumbidgee: - declined (per edit summary comments) to provide citations:   but accused others of failing to uphold his unreferenced edits
 * Associated attacks on other editors -
 * AYArktos       , including accusations of stalking.
 * Grahamec
 * Robertmeyers
 * Regardless of which article talk page, the editor refuses to sign posts nor does he observe any courtesy in formatting his comments sequentially. He has been asked several times to sign.
 * Inserting comments in middle of articles:
 * Assertions about posting confidential indigenous information:, editors working on Gundagai and related articles have been quite careful to cite sources and those sources are published sources. The accusations from the anon editor are quite bizarre.  He, however, makes constant reference to unpublished material relating to indigenous matters, for example , which other editors have removed with the statement (if it shouldn't be posted here - don't post it).  The anon also suggests a conspiracy to hide highly significant material which he can't reference right now, but "cannot ever go up her ebecause of the dreadful atatcks on me by an admin etc.".

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * No original research and Verifiability
 * No personal attacks, Civility, Civility

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)


 * In addition to article talk page discussions responding to and addressing issues raised by user and by user's behaviour:


 * Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 21
 * User talk:Longhair
 * User talk:Longhair/Archive9
 * User talk:Longhair
 * User talk:Longhair 13 July comments by Petaholmes


 * User talk:Petaholmes
 * User talk:Petaholmes 13 July


 * User talk:AYArktos (now archived)
 * User talk:AYArktos/Archive05 - comments by User:Roisterer
 * User talk:AYArktos/Archive05 - comments by Longhair 9 July and Robertmyers 12 July
 * User talk:AYArktos/Archive05 - response by Petaholes and Longhair 13 July


 * WP:AN/I
 * Initial Posting from Robertmyers 13 July Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive120
 * My request Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive120 13 July

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}



Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.